I hear a lot of liberals saying "our representatives dont represent the people blah blah" and that why dont we have a direct democracy so the people can vote. Our forefathers tried to make this country as idiot proof as possible for future generations so they made a republic instead of a direct democracy, just incase some kind of widespread mental dissorder took over more than 50% of the voting base.
For example, Crystal Meth is a big problem in the US. If we had a direct democracy than after more than 50% of the people were addicted to meth they would hold more voting power and the country would be run by meth addicts which would in turn legalize meth and promote it and everyone else will start smoking meth and eventually it would be chaos and the country would crumble. Im imagining about cars crashing head on and buildings on fire in the distance.
Is anyone else glad we don't have a direct democracy, do you se the beauty in this fail safe? Yes or no, and explain.
2007-03-01 05:05:54 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
@DBA Greg
Who says people who do drugs don't vote? Why would you say something like that I know a looot of people who do drugs that vote.
2007-03-01 05:26:56 · update #1
It's true. The forefathers saw the possible problems with direct democracy. Because direct democracy only works for the good of the country PROVIDED that the majority of citizens are responsible and good people. If the majority of citizens are crooks and irresponsible people, the fate of the country is doomed, because the majority gets to decide in a direct democracy.
Luckily, the forefathers knew about this problem, and decided to use representative democracy and a constitutional republic structure for America, where the liberties of the minority are protected by the constitution and the checks and balances that are in place to deterr the tyranny of the majority.
Yes, I am glad that America is not a direct democracy. Still, even a constitutional republic has it's weakness - it depends on the congress to check the power of the president. If the congress is divided or weak and confused, the president can pretty much get away with anything.
2007-03-01 06:37:40 · answer #1 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What liberals have you been listening to? Everyone I have heard both lib and con approve of the republic over direct pure democracy. They realize that we are too big for a pure democracy with it we'd get nothing done. It is tough enough in a republic sometimes to get things done. Imagine pure democracy, we'd come to a halt very fast.
2007-03-01 13:11:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say here, here to your post, not because I am follow a conservative, but rather the opposite. The number of idiotic and judgemental posts put up by liberals with no citations are the reasons why we don't have direct democracy.
2007-03-01 13:14:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think about all the money we would save if we had a direct democracy by not having Congress! Not only would we not have to pay their salaries, we wouldn't have to pay for their staff or their retirement.
Libertarians would have their way because when have you seen 50% of the people agree in anything. Nothing would get passed-- EVER!
2007-03-01 13:14:50 · answer #4 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Drug users don't vote so that argument is silly. And what about our current system would prevent them from electing another addict? Sorry but you need to put this argument through the thought mill again.
Also, most liberals support our current system of government, they just object tot he way it's being run and how much corruption there is.
2007-03-01 13:13:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋